Disagree totally, printing order is very important to collectors.
You know, you really have to wonder about some of the people who post here, if they actually have any clue as to what the hell is going on...
Sea-to-sky-games wrote:A very strange (and inflammatory) comment considering opinions are entirely subjective. Not sure you had a monopoly on those. Contrary to your sentiments, I think it is impossible for anyone to emphatically state how all collectors precisely weigh the characteristics of an item when making their valuation. The acaeum is a great site.. but it can't do that or anything remotely close. In this situation, I've ventured that it seems reasonable that dramatic condition differences can outweigh (perhaps greatly so) the slight differences in rarity and printing nuances.. for some/many collectors.
Greg Stafford wrote:Booklets and Errata in Excellent condition: sharp corners, no marks, no rust on staples, some staining from ageBox: top is stained from age, with a broken bottom left corner, and some peeling of the side label bottom: slightly bent with some creasing on lower left corner, no broken corners.
red_bus wrote:Hey Brian.Your set doesn't show up on a D&D or an AD&D search (unless you go for; search title and description). Now of course it is probably more accurate to list it, as you have done, with an OD&D - especially for established collectors and people who frequent this site. But by not having it show up in those more common searches you might be missing out on non Acaeum-ers and/or people new to collecting who are interested in getting an original D&D set. Just a suggestion. Good luck! [edited to add - besides you know how auctions go - you won't know who gets higher until the snipes are in ]
bclarkie wrote:Early printing PHB: ** expired/removed eBay auction **Waiting on the actual print confirmation from the seller.
bombadil wrote:Heh, you can probably just drive over there and take a look at it.
bombadil wrote:Yeah, the item in the photos looks like original notes, but it clearly says you're going to get a scan.Too bad, the original would be worth a bid. Looks like a decent piece of work.
deimos3428 wrote:I believe it's a 2nd, and I'd love to know if I'm right. I'll tell you how I came up with that if I am.
darkseraphim wrote:Provenance is a tricky thing, especially when it comes to non-antique retro items that are aging into a generational hierarchy. (Meaning the old guys and the kids are now mixing it up on these items.)
bclarkie wrote:Sorry, its a 3rd. Check the Q&A.